Skip to comments.Supreme Court to hear Florida property-rights case
Posted on 01/14/2013 8:20:52 PM PST by WilliamIII
ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in a property-rights case that could have national implications about what government can require landowners to do in exchange for allowing them to develop their property. The plaintiff, Coy Koontz Jr., took over the case for his deceased father who in 1994 sued Florida's St. Johns River Water Management District after it denied him permits to dredge and fill in wetlands on his 15-acre (6-hectare) parcel because of concerns about possible environmental damage. Koontz's original development plan called for destroying more than three acres of protected wetlands in the Econlockhatchee River Hydrologic Basin near Orlando, Florida. Koontz offered to mitigate the damage by preserving about 11 acres of the site, but the water management district told him the law required him to do more.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
If ownership no longer means control, why buy anything, especially property if one can make no "improvements?"
I know, us serfs an slaves should just rent anything and everything, especially our land as we should wait for government to grant us some piddling little rights and controls on our property.(/sourchasm)
After the Obamacareless decision, I wonder if it's worth fighting things all the way to the Supreme Court... Especially with our burgeoning un-elected glut of government grief givers!!!
This isn’t how I heard the case described on the John Batchelor Show. The guy wanted to landscape some wetlands and the water district said he could if he paid for wetlands elsewhere. The point the guest on the show made was that if the water district didn’t want him to do that, they should have just denied the permit. However, the district actually said it would be OK to do that, if he essentially bribed them. Since it would be OK if he bribed them, it should be OK if he didn’t bribe them. That was the initial ruling that was overturned by the state Supreme Court.
Koontz’s original development plan called for destroying more than three acres of protected wetlands WRONG
Koontz’s original development plan called for filling in muddy holes in his property.
Any FReeper want to bet on whether the “wise Latina female” rules for government being able to continue doing anything it wants with private property?
Property means little to Hispanics because their society does not have the assurance of person and property, of presumption of innocence, etc.
The Hispanic perspective on security of property can be measured in the long history of iron bars on all openings of their buildings. Contrary to Libtard propaganda, they know their cultures propensity for what Americans call theft.
In Hispanic societies, that which is not locked down is taken. In America, property was considered inviolate, and theft was rare. Only in America could people develop an entire nation where homes once were not locked, and when a car was purchased, the key was placed in it and often seldom (sometimes never) removed.
All of the above began to disappear in the Wilson/FDR era when we began ape-ing the socialism of Europe.
When we passed socialism based laws to replace the historic American laws based upon a self regulating nation of individual with European style socialist laws, we began to act like Eurotrash.
To paraphrase a certain English literary figure - BAH! Humbuggery!
Two! Four! Six! Eight! We don’t wanna mitigate!!!
Supreme court? Don’t count on them to uphold any rights of citizens- roberts proved he’s NOT goign to do so
I have wetlands on my property, and what used to be a pond. I love mudpuddles. But during drought, vegetation moves in so thick it builds up the soil and makes it shallower each time. now it is nearly full. But the rules here in Fl bar me from doing anything to maintain the wetland, so it is filling up and becoming dry, even after a lot of rain. Used to have wood storks, egrets, herons, and so on, but now it is too overgrown and the water too clogged with vegetation for the birds to make use of it so it is rare to see any trying anymore. I'd like to dig it out a bit to provide a little open water and some shallow open water for the wading birds but no, trying to get a permit to do it is too much trouble, assuming it is even possible. Soon, there will be no wetland at all.
Thanks for explaining it simply. If it’s OK with a bribe, it should be OK without a bribe.
I saw him on TV the other day. At one point in the legal proceedings, his lawyers and the government lawyers were in an elevator together and one of his lawyers asked one of the other lawyers, “If it is so important to maintain the wetlands, why don’t you just buy the land from him?” and she said something to the effect that, “Why should we do that when we can get it for free?”
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
So you can’t fill in a “wetland” and you can’t repair a “wetland”.Sounds like it’s more about denying you the use of your land than it is about wetlands.
I love it.
To say nothing of the combination of church and state!!!
Thank you. Sometimes I just get too cute by half!!! (grin)
“Which just proves what I’ve always said... GovernMental EnvironMentalism is nothing but welfare for wildlife and affirmative action for plantlife!!!
To say nothing of the combination of church and state!!!”
That’s awesome! I love it!
“Sometimes I just get too cute by half!!! (grin)”
Awwww...don’t sell yerse’f short. You’re too cute by whole. ;o)
Wull... I’m sure glad you put that “w” in front of that hole!!! Ha ha ha ha (snort!)
Yer funny and adorable. ;o)
I don’t like the idea of ANY important cases coming before a Supreme Court that is now comprised of three distinct factions - - 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moron.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.